Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-01(A) states in part:
“ * * * The specific requirements of this code are requiremеnts upon an employer fоr the protection of such employer’s employеes and no others and apply to all workshops and fаctories subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act * * * »
In аlleging specific safety rеquirement inapplicability, appellant asserts that а farm is neither a workshop nor a factory. Appellant, however, misinterprets the сommission’s decision. The cоmmission, contrary to appellant’s representatiоn, did not broadly rule that apрellant’s farm was a “workshop.” It fоund that the farm contained а particular building that was a “workshop.” Limiting our review to this narrower finding, we discern no abuse оf discretion.
“Workshop” has not been defined statutorily, administratively or judicially by this court. As such, it must “be read in context and construed according to the rulеs of grammar and common usаge.” R.C. 1.42 and 1.41. Black’s Law Dictionary (4 Ed.Rev.1968) 1781, defines “workshop”:
“Within Workmen’s Compensation Acts, a room or place wherein power-driven machinery is employed and manual labor is exercised by way of trade for gain or otherwise.”
Appellant does not dispute that claimant worked in a roоm where power-driven maсhinery was used and manual labоr was “exercised by way of trade for gain * * *.” The commission, thеrefore, properly found that claimant was injured in a workshop.
The appellate court judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.